Periodically harvested closures are a widespread, centuries-old form of fisheries management that protects fish between pulse harvests and can generate high harvest efficiency by reducing fish wariness of fishing gear. However, the ability for periodic closures to also support high fisheries yields and healthy marine ecosystems is uncertain, despite increased promotion of periodic closures for managing fisheries and conserving ecosystems in the Indo-Pacific. We developed a bioeconomic fisheries model that considers changes in fish wariness, based on empirical field research, and quantified the extent to which periodic closures can simultaneously maximize harvest efficiency, fisheries yield and conservation of fish stocks. We found that periodic closures with a harvest schedule represented by closure for one to a few years between a single pulse harvest event can generate equivalent fisheries yield and stock abundance levels and greater harvest efficiency than achievable under conventional fisheries management with or without a permanent closure. Optimality of periodic closures at maximizing the triple objective of high harvest efficiency, high fisheries yield, and high stock abundance was robust to fish life history traits and to all but extreme levels of overfishing. With moderate overfishing, there emerged a trade-off between periodic closures that maximized harvest efficiency and no-take permanent closures that maximized yield; however, the gain in harvest efficiency outweighed the loss in yield for periodic closures when compared with permanent closures. Only with extreme overfishing, where fishing under nonspatial management would reduce the stock to <= 18% of its unfished level, was the harvest efficiency benefit too small for periodic closures to best meet the triple objective compared with permanent closures. Synthesis and applications. We show that periodically harvested closures can, in most cases, simultaneously maximize harvest efficiency, fisheries yield, and fish stock conservation beyond that achievable by no-take permanent closures or nonspatial management. Our results also provide design guidance, indicating that short closure periods between pulse harvest events are most appropriate for well-managed fisheries or areas with large periodic closures, whereas longer closure periods are more appropriate for small periodic closure areas and overfished systems.

AimConservation priorities need to take the feasibility of protection measures into account. In times of economic pressure it is essential to identify the low-hanging fruit' for conservation: areas where human impacts are lower and biological diversity is still high, and thus conservation is more feasible. LocationWe used the Mediterranean large marine ecosystem (LME) as a case study to identify the overlapping areas of low threats and high diversity of vertebrate species at risk. MethodsThis LME is the first in the world to have a complete regional IUCN Red List assessment of the native marine fish. We augmented these data with distributions of marine mammals, marine turtles and seabirds at risk, and we calculated the spatial distributions of species at risk (IUCN densities). Using cumulative threats we identified priority areas for conservation of species at risk' (PACS), where IUCN diversities are high and threats are low. We assessed whether IUCN diversities and PACS were spatially congruent among taxa and we quantified whether PACS corresponded to current and proposed protected areas. ResultsIUCN densities and PACS were not highly correlated spatially among taxa. Continental shelves and deep-sea slopes of the Alboran Sea, western Mediterranean and Tunisian Plateau/Gulf of Sidra are identified as relevant for fish species at risk. The eastern side of the western Mediterranean and the Adriatic Sea are identified as most relevant for endemic fish, and shelf and open sea areas distributed through the LME are most important for marine mammals and turtles at risk, while specific locations of the western Mediterranean Sea and the Aegean and Levantine seas are highlighted for seabirds. Main conclusionsLarge parts of the areas of PACS fell outside current or proposed frameworks to be prioritized for conservation. PACS may be suitable candidates for contributing to the 10% protection target for the Mediterranean Sea by 2020.

Knowledge of the spatial distribution of fish assemblages biodiversity and structure is essential for prioritizing areas of conservation. Here we describe the biodiversity and community structure of demersal fish assemblages and their habitat along the northeast Brazilian coast by combining bottom trawl data and underwater footage. Species composition was estimated by number and weight, while patterns of dominance were obtained based on frequency of occurrence and relative abundance. A total of 7235 individuals (830 kg), distributed in 24 orders, 49 families and 120 species were collected. Community structure was investigated through clustering analysis and by a non-metric multidimensional scaling technique. Finally, diversity was assessed based on six indices. Four major assemblages were identified, mainly associated with habitat type and depth range. The higher values of richness were found in sand substrate with rocks, coralline formations and sponges (SWCR) habitats, while higher values of diversity were found in habitats located on shallow waters (10–30 m). Further, assemblages associated with sponge-reef formations presented the highest values of richness and diversity. In management strategies of conservation, we thus recommend giving special attention on SWCR habitats, mainly those located on depths between 30 and 60 m. This can be achieved by an offshore expansion of existing MPAs and/or by the creation of new MPAs encompassing those environments.

Strong decreases in greenhouse gas emissions are required to meet the reduction trajectory resolved within the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, even these decreases will not avert serious stress and damage to life on Earth, and additional steps are needed to boost the resilience of ecosystems, safeguard their wildlife, and protect their capacity to supply vital goods and services. We discuss how well-managed marine reserves may help marine ecosystems and people adapt to five prominent impacts of climate change: acidification, sea-level rise, intensification of storms, shifts in species distribution, and decreased productivity and oxygen availability, as well as their cumulative effects. We explore the role of managed ecosystems in mitigating climate change by promoting carbon sequestration and storage and by buffering against uncertainty in management, environmental fluctuations, directional change, and extreme events. We highlight both strengths and limitations and conclude that marine reserves are a viable low-tech, cost-effective adaptation strategy that would yield multiple cobenefits from local to global scales, improving the outlook for the environment and people into the future.

Connectivity is a crucial process underpinning the persistence, recovery, and productivity of marine ecosystems. The Convention on Biological Diversity, through the Aichi Target 11, has set the ambitious objective of implementing a ‘well connected system of protected areas’ by 2020. This paper identifies eight challenges toward the integration of connectivity into MPA network management and planning. A summary table lists the main recommendations in terms of method, tool, advice, or action to address each of these challenges. Authors belong to a science–management continuum including researchers, international NGO officers, and national MPA agency members. Three knowledge challenges are addressed: selecting and integrating connectivity measurement metrics; assessing the accuracy and uncertainty of connectivity measurements; and communicating and visualizing connectivity measurements. Three management challenges are described: integrating connectivity into the planning and management of MPA networks; setting quantitative connectivity targets; and implementing connectivity-based management across scales and marine jurisdictions. Finally, two paths toward a better integration of connectivity science with MPA management are proposed: setting management-driven priorities for connectivity research, bridging connectivity science, and MPA network management. There is no single method to integrate connectivity into marine spatial planning. Rather, an array of methods can be assembled according to the MPA network objectives, budget, available skills, data, and timeframe. Overall, setting up ‘boundary organizations’ should be promoted to organize complex cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral and cross-jurisdiction interactions that are needed between scientists, managers, stakeholders and decision-makers to make informed decision regarding connectivity-based MPA planning and management.